linux-kernel - Re: IPv4 BUG: held lock freed!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1345391708.5158.225.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:55:08 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Lin Ming <mlin@...pku.edu.cn>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IPv4 BUG: held lock freed!

On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 23:05 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 22:15 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> >
> >> Will it still has problem if code goes here without sock_hold(sk)?
> >
> > Not sure of what you mean.
> 
> See my comments in the function.
> Is that a potential problem?
> 

No problem.

It always been like that. Thats the whole point having a refcount at the
first place.

The last sock_put(sk) should free the socket.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/